Blog: Cabinet meeting looking at school transport

Comments

hatofthecat
3:17pm Tue 4 Feb 14

OSBAG, what total self interest group. Why the heck should the rest of us subsidise their kids travel ? They are your kids, its about time you started paying for the cost of them rather than expecting the state to pick up the tab.

OSBAG, what total self interest group. Why the heck should the rest of us subsidise their kids travel ? They are your kids, its about time you started paying for the cost of them rather than expecting the state to pick up the tab.hatofthecat

OSBAG, what total self interest group. Why the heck should the rest of us subsidise their kids travel ? They are your kids, its about time you started paying for the cost of them rather than expecting the state to pick up the tab.

Score: -1

yabbadabbadoo256
4:31pm Tue 4 Feb 14

hatofthecat wrote…

OSBAG, what total self interest group. Why the heck should the rest of us subsidise their kids travel ? They are your kids, its about time you started paying for the cost of them rather than expecting the state to pick up the tab.

A very niave comment there. Do you expect rural people who do not have a school nearby to fund their own transport because the council have not had the thought to have schools nearby? I can think of a couple of large villages in Oxfordshire which do not have a Secondary school in walking distance of them and would require trips of several miles to even get to the nearest school.

SOme of these rural people are also not exactly flushed with cash like all your Oxford City folk.

[quote][p][bold]hatofthecat[/bold] wrote:
OSBAG, what total self interest group. Why the heck should the rest of us subsidise their kids travel ? They are your kids, its about time you started paying for the cost of them rather than expecting the state to pick up the tab.[/p][/quote]A very niave comment there. Do you expect rural people who do not have a school nearby to fund their own transport because the council have not had the thought to have schools nearby? I can think of a couple of large villages in Oxfordshire which do not have a Secondary school in walking distance of them and would require trips of several miles to even get to the nearest school.
SOme of these rural people are also not exactly flushed with cash like all your Oxford City folk.yabbadabbadoo256

hatofthecat wrote…

OSBAG, what total self interest group. Why the heck should the rest of us subsidise their kids travel ? They are your kids, its about time you started paying for the cost of them rather than expecting the state to pick up the tab.

A very niave comment there. Do you expect rural people who do not have a school nearby to fund their own transport because the council have not had the thought to have schools nearby? I can think of a couple of large villages in Oxfordshire which do not have a Secondary school in walking distance of them and would require trips of several miles to even get to the nearest school.

SOme of these rural people are also not exactly flushed with cash like all your Oxford City folk.

Score: -1

online_reader
4:47pm Tue 4 Feb 14

In some cases, the children's catchment school, i.e. the one recommended by the council, is not their closest. In others, the closest school has no bus service, so if you now choose to swap to the closest the council will have to pay for a taxi, even if there's a bus to one a couple of hundred yards further away. It all seems a bit bonkers to me.

In some cases, the children's catchment school, i.e. the one recommended by the council, is not their closest. In others, the closest school has no bus service, so if you now choose to swap to the closest the council will have to pay for a taxi, even if there's a bus to one a couple of hundred yards further away. It all seems a bit bonkers to me.online_reader

In some cases, the children's catchment school, i.e. the one recommended by the council, is not their closest. In others, the closest school has no bus service, so if you now choose to swap to the closest the council will have to pay for a taxi, even if there's a bus to one a couple of hundred yards further away. It all seems a bit bonkers to me.

Score: 2

hatofthecat
6:40pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Oh how "naive" of me yabbadabbadoo256 to foolishly overlook the council just building a load of schools all over the place nearer their houses instead . Yes that would be such a cheaper solution, truly genius....

Oh how "naive" of me yabbadabbadoo256 to foolishly overlook the council just building a load of schools all over the place nearer their houses instead . Yes that would be such a cheaper solution, truly genius....hatofthecat

Oh how "naive" of me yabbadabbadoo256 to foolishly overlook the council just building a load of schools all over the place nearer their houses instead . Yes that would be such a cheaper solution, truly genius....

Score: 1

oxinkytext
7:38pm Tue 4 Feb 14

I agree with hatofthecat. Much of the noise comes from parents choosing to send their children to schools which are not local to them. Fine - that is their choice - but no reason why everyone else has to pay. It is a different matter if the child cannot get into their local school because it is full and has to be sent to a more distant school. Then, the council should pay.

There is also the matter of £7million paid on taxis to ferry children to schools! I am sure there are legitimate cases, but this seems to have been exploited. Just try and get a taxi booking at 8-9am in the morning -they are all booked for the school run!

I agree with hatofthecat. Much of the noise comes from parents choosing to send their children to schools which are not local to them. Fine - that is their choice - but no reason why everyone else has to pay. It is a different matter if the child cannot get into their local school because it is full and has to be sent to a more distant school. Then, the council should pay.
There is also the matter of £7million paid on taxis to ferry children to schools! I am sure there are legitimate cases, but this seems to have been exploited. Just try and get a taxi booking at 8-9am in the morning -they are all booked for the school run!oxinkytext

I agree with hatofthecat. Much of the noise comes from parents choosing to send their children to schools which are not local to them. Fine - that is their choice - but no reason why everyone else has to pay. It is a different matter if the child cannot get into their local school because it is full and has to be sent to a more distant school. Then, the council should pay.

There is also the matter of £7million paid on taxis to ferry children to schools! I am sure there are legitimate cases, but this seems to have been exploited. Just try and get a taxi booking at 8-9am in the morning -they are all booked for the school run!

Score: 6

mytaxes
8:31pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Some common sense at last with the council. I am happy to pay for education but not for all the extras, how much more council tax do they expect me to pay? Even the city council had a budget for education last year although it is the responsibility of the county.

Some common sense at last with the council. I am happy to pay for education but not for all the extras, how much more council tax do they expect me to pay? Even the city council had a budget for education last year although it is the responsibility of the county.mytaxes

Some common sense at last with the council. I am happy to pay for education but not for all the extras, how much more council tax do they expect me to pay? Even the city council had a budget for education last year although it is the responsibility of the county.

Score: 2

village lad
9:44pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Please remember your local council elections and put these people out of a job!

Please remember your local council elections and put these people out of a job!village lad

Please remember your local council elections and put these people out of a job!

Score: -4

village lad
9:46pm Tue 4 Feb 14

What you also have to think about is that the nearest School is not always the best School. For example i had to remove both my Son and Daughter from their primary School purely because the Head and governors could not run a bath let alone a school

What you also have to think about is that the nearest School is not always the best School. For example i had to remove both my Son and Daughter from their primary School purely because the Head and governors could not run a bath let alone a schoolvillage lad

What you also have to think about is that the nearest School is not always the best School. For example i had to remove both my Son and Daughter from their primary School purely because the Head and governors could not run a bath let alone a school

Score: -2

Com sense
9:52pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Unfortunately some of the comments on here are missing the point, transport will still have to be provided in most cases but just to a different 'closer' school. Some villages nearest schools are different depending on where you live in that village, thus destroying friendships built up from the age of 4. The important partnership working that currently takes place would also be severely damaged. A council tax increase would be more sensible as we will all have to a lot more eventually either through lost services or financially.

Unfortunately some of the comments on here are missing the point, transport will still have to be provided in most cases but just to a different 'closer' school. Some villages nearest schools are different depending on where you live in that village, thus destroying friendships built up from the age of 4. The important partnership working that currently takes place would also be severely damaged. A council tax increase would be more sensible as we will all have to a lot more eventually either through lost services or financially.Com sense

Unfortunately some of the comments on here are missing the point, transport will still have to be provided in most cases but just to a different 'closer' school. Some villages nearest schools are different depending on where you live in that village, thus destroying friendships built up from the age of 4. The important partnership working that currently takes place would also be severely damaged. A council tax increase would be more sensible as we will all have to a lot more eventually either through lost services or financially.

Score: 1

Segdirb22
10:01pm Tue 4 Feb 14

oxinkytext wrote…

I agree with hatofthecat. Much of the noise comes from parents choosing to send their children to schools which are not local to them. Fine - that is their choice - but no reason why everyone else has to pay. It is a different matter if the child cannot get into their local school because it is full and has to be sent to a more distant school. Then, the council should pay.

There is also the matter of £7million paid on taxis to ferry children to schools! I am sure there are legitimate cases, but this seems to have been exploited. Just try and get a taxi booking at 8-9am in the morning -they are all booked for the school run!

The fact is that children should be able to move from their primary school onto their catchment secondary school. In a lot of situations across Oxfordshire this will now mean that they can't do that as a FREE school or Faith School has cropped up in recent years. They will now be forced to attend those schools or pay to travel to their catchment school. A ridiculous amount of money has been spent investing in school partnerships and to waste that on POSSIBLE savings (they are not guaranteed by any stretch as no proper case studies were carried out prior to consultation). It is all a very big gamble with tax payers money. THIS IS NOT ABOUT PARENTS WHINGING ABOUT GOING TO BEST SCHOOLS.

[quote][p][bold]oxinkytext[/bold] wrote:
I agree with hatofthecat. Much of the noise comes from parents choosing to send their children to schools which are not local to them. Fine - that is their choice - but no reason why everyone else has to pay. It is a different matter if the child cannot get into their local school because it is full and has to be sent to a more distant school. Then, the council should pay.
There is also the matter of £7million paid on taxis to ferry children to schools! I am sure there are legitimate cases, but this seems to have been exploited. Just try and get a taxi booking at 8-9am in the morning -they are all booked for the school run![/p][/quote]The fact is that children should be able to move from their primary school onto their catchment secondary school. In a lot of situations across Oxfordshire this will now mean that they can't do that as a FREE school or Faith School has cropped up in recent years. They will now be forced to attend those schools or pay to travel to their catchment school. A ridiculous amount of money has been spent investing in school partnerships and to waste that on POSSIBLE savings (they are not guaranteed by any stretch as no proper case studies were carried out prior to consultation). It is all a very big gamble with tax payers money. THIS IS NOT ABOUT PARENTS WHINGING ABOUT GOING TO BEST SCHOOLS.Segdirb22

oxinkytext wrote…

I agree with hatofthecat. Much of the noise comes from parents choosing to send their children to schools which are not local to them. Fine - that is their choice - but no reason why everyone else has to pay. It is a different matter if the child cannot get into their local school because it is full and has to be sent to a more distant school. Then, the council should pay.

There is also the matter of £7million paid on taxis to ferry children to schools! I am sure there are legitimate cases, but this seems to have been exploited. Just try and get a taxi booking at 8-9am in the morning -they are all booked for the school run!

The fact is that children should be able to move from their primary school onto their catchment secondary school. In a lot of situations across Oxfordshire this will now mean that they can't do that as a FREE school or Faith School has cropped up in recent years. They will now be forced to attend those schools or pay to travel to their catchment school. A ridiculous amount of money has been spent investing in school partnerships and to waste that on POSSIBLE savings (they are not guaranteed by any stretch as no proper case studies were carried out prior to consultation). It is all a very big gamble with tax payers money. THIS IS NOT ABOUT PARENTS WHINGING ABOUT GOING TO BEST SCHOOLS.

Score: 0

Bicester retired
10:07pm Tue 4 Feb 14

I agree that the council has to pay only when children are sent to a distant school due to lack of places in local schools.

Most people are free to choose where to live. Some choose to live near parents, some near friends, some near work and some near school. Also, people are free to choose to have children or not. Don't put the responsibility to others for problems created by your own choice.

A friend of mine works in London and has chosen to live in Bicester. He has to spend more than £5000 a year for his train and underground tickets due to his choice. Do anyone want to subsidise him for his travel?

I agree that the council has to pay only when children are sent to a distant school due to lack of places in local schools.
Most people are free to choose where to live. Some choose to live near parents, some near friends, some near work and some near school. Also, people are free to choose to have children or not. Don't put the responsibility to others for problems created by your own choice.
A friend of mine works in London and has chosen to live in Bicester. He has to spend more than £5000 a year for his train and underground tickets due to his choice. Do anyone want to subsidise him for his travel?Bicester retired

I agree that the council has to pay only when children are sent to a distant school due to lack of places in local schools.

Most people are free to choose where to live. Some choose to live near parents, some near friends, some near work and some near school. Also, people are free to choose to have children or not. Don't put the responsibility to others for problems created by your own choice.

A friend of mine works in London and has chosen to live in Bicester. He has to spend more than £5000 a year for his train and underground tickets due to his choice. Do anyone want to subsidise him for his travel?

Score: 6

Com sense
10:39pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Bicester retired wrote…

I agree that the council has to pay only when children are sent to a distant school due to lack of places in local schools.

Most people are free to choose where to live. Some choose to live near parents, some near friends, some near work and some near school. Also, people are free to choose to have children or not. Don't put the responsibility to others for problems created by your own choice.

A friend of mine works in London and has chosen to live in Bicester. He has to spend more than £5000 a year for his train and underground tickets due to his choice. Do anyone want to subsidise him for his travel?

A lot of people may have chosen to live according to catchment areas which have previously been set by the council, the goal posts have now been moved and certain secondary schools existence may seriously be at threat. We as a generation have a responsibility for the next generations education and that must be remembered.

[quote][p][bold]Bicester retired[/bold] wrote:
I agree that the council has to pay only when children are sent to a distant school due to lack of places in local schools.
Most people are free to choose where to live. Some choose to live near parents, some near friends, some near work and some near school. Also, people are free to choose to have children or not. Don't put the responsibility to others for problems created by your own choice.
A friend of mine works in London and has chosen to live in Bicester. He has to spend more than £5000 a year for his train and underground tickets due to his choice. Do anyone want to subsidise him for his travel?[/p][/quote]A lot of people may have chosen to live according to catchment areas which have previously been set by the council, the goal posts have now been moved and certain secondary schools existence may seriously be at threat. We as a generation have a responsibility for the next generations education and that must be remembered.Com sense

Bicester retired wrote…

I agree that the council has to pay only when children are sent to a distant school due to lack of places in local schools.

Most people are free to choose where to live. Some choose to live near parents, some near friends, some near work and some near school. Also, people are free to choose to have children or not. Don't put the responsibility to others for problems created by your own choice.

A friend of mine works in London and has chosen to live in Bicester. He has to spend more than £5000 a year for his train and underground tickets due to his choice. Do anyone want to subsidise him for his travel?

A lot of people may have chosen to live according to catchment areas which have previously been set by the council, the goal posts have now been moved and certain secondary schools existence may seriously be at threat. We as a generation have a responsibility for the next generations education and that must be remembered.

Score: -1

eds444
10:52pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Why do the council continue to persecute children's services - is it because they do not have children of their own or because their children have now left education? The savings they will make by cutting bus services to catchment schools will be minimal. If they wanted to make significant savings perhaps they should be looking a little closer to home i.e. private medical insurance for staff members. Ian Hudspeth should remember who elected him to office and should now be counting his days as a councillor as he will definitely not be re-elected following his handling of this fiasco. We should ALL also remember that our current school children are the ones who will be funding our pensions in the not too distant future and if they haven't received the right education - because they have not been given a choice on which school they should attend - they will not get the jobs which will give them the income which will ultimately fund our pensions and other services. Also, we educate our children not to bully others and yet here we are with councillors who are bullying us in to sending our children to schools that are not our first choice because they simply cannot afford to send them to their preferred school. The current system isn't broken, it does not need to be fixed - LEAVE IT ALONE. And as for those of you who have commented about taxes - do you not have school age children either? How did you get to school, who funded your route, and did you get sent to a school which you did not chose to go to?

Why do the council continue to persecute children's services - is it because they do not have children of their own or because their children have now left education? The savings they will make by cutting bus services to catchment schools will be minimal. If they wanted to make significant savings perhaps they should be looking a little closer to home i.e. private medical insurance for staff members. Ian Hudspeth should remember who elected him to office and should now be counting his days as a councillor as he will definitely not be re-elected following his handling of this fiasco. We should ALL also remember that our current school children are the ones who will be funding our pensions in the not too distant future and if they haven't received the right education - because they have not been given a choice on which school they should attend - they will not get the jobs which will give them the income which will ultimately fund our pensions and other services. Also, we educate our children not to bully others and yet here we are with councillors who are bullying us in to sending our children to schools that are not our first choice because they simply cannot afford to send them to their preferred school. The current system isn't broken, it does not need to be fixed - LEAVE IT ALONE. And as for those of you who have commented about taxes - do you not have school age children either? How did you get to school, who funded your route, and did you get sent to a school which you did not chose to go to?eds444

Why do the council continue to persecute children's services - is it because they do not have children of their own or because their children have now left education? The savings they will make by cutting bus services to catchment schools will be minimal. If they wanted to make significant savings perhaps they should be looking a little closer to home i.e. private medical insurance for staff members. Ian Hudspeth should remember who elected him to office and should now be counting his days as a councillor as he will definitely not be re-elected following his handling of this fiasco. We should ALL also remember that our current school children are the ones who will be funding our pensions in the not too distant future and if they haven't received the right education - because they have not been given a choice on which school they should attend - they will not get the jobs which will give them the income which will ultimately fund our pensions and other services. Also, we educate our children not to bully others and yet here we are with councillors who are bullying us in to sending our children to schools that are not our first choice because they simply cannot afford to send them to their preferred school. The current system isn't broken, it does not need to be fixed - LEAVE IT ALONE. And as for those of you who have commented about taxes - do you not have school age children either? How did you get to school, who funded your route, and did you get sent to a school which you did not chose to go to?

Score: -1

Com sense
11:26pm Tue 4 Feb 14

eds444 wrote…

Why do the council continue to persecute children's services - is it because they do not have children of their own or because their children have now left education? The savings they will make by cutting bus services to catchment schools will be minimal. If they wanted to make significant savings perhaps they should be looking a little closer to home i.e. private medical insurance for staff members. Ian Hudspeth should remember who elected him to office and should now be counting his days as a councillor as he will definitely not be re-elected following his handling of this fiasco. We should ALL also remember that our current school children are the ones who will be funding our pensions in the not too distant future and if they haven't received the right education - because they have not been given a choice on which school they should attend - they will not get the jobs which will give them the income which will ultimately fund our pensions and other services. Also, we educate our children not to bully others and yet here we are with councillors who are bullying us in to sending our children to schools that are not our first choice because they simply cannot afford to send them to their preferred school. The current system isn't broken, it does not need to be fixed - LEAVE IT ALONE. And as for those of you who have commented about taxes - do you not have school age children either? How did you get to school, who funded your route, and did you get sent to a school which you did not chose to go to?

Private medical insurance????? It's not about 'first choice' schools or ' preferred' schools, it's about not being to afford to send your children to the school designated as your child's catchment school.

[quote][p][bold]eds444[/bold] wrote:
Why do the council continue to persecute children's services - is it because they do not have children of their own or because their children have now left education? The savings they will make by cutting bus services to catchment schools will be minimal. If they wanted to make significant savings perhaps they should be looking a little closer to home i.e. private medical insurance for staff members. Ian Hudspeth should remember who elected him to office and should now be counting his days as a councillor as he will definitely not be re-elected following his handling of this fiasco. We should ALL also remember that our current school children are the ones who will be funding our pensions in the not too distant future and if they haven't received the right education - because they have not been given a choice on which school they should attend - they will not get the jobs which will give them the income which will ultimately fund our pensions and other services. Also, we educate our children not to bully others and yet here we are with councillors who are bullying us in to sending our children to schools that are not our first choice because they simply cannot afford to send them to their preferred school. The current system isn't broken, it does not need to be fixed - LEAVE IT ALONE. And as for those of you who have commented about taxes - do you not have school age children either? How did you get to school, who funded your route, and did you get sent to a school which you did not chose to go to?[/p][/quote]Private medical insurance????? It's not about 'first choice' schools or ' preferred' schools, it's about not being to afford to send your children to the school designated as your child's catchment school.Com sense

eds444 wrote…

Why do the council continue to persecute children's services - is it because they do not have children of their own or because their children have now left education? The savings they will make by cutting bus services to catchment schools will be minimal. If they wanted to make significant savings perhaps they should be looking a little closer to home i.e. private medical insurance for staff members. Ian Hudspeth should remember who elected him to office and should now be counting his days as a councillor as he will definitely not be re-elected following his handling of this fiasco. We should ALL also remember that our current school children are the ones who will be funding our pensions in the not too distant future and if they haven't received the right education - because they have not been given a choice on which school they should attend - they will not get the jobs which will give them the income which will ultimately fund our pensions and other services. Also, we educate our children not to bully others and yet here we are with councillors who are bullying us in to sending our children to schools that are not our first choice because they simply cannot afford to send them to their preferred school. The current system isn't broken, it does not need to be fixed - LEAVE IT ALONE. And as for those of you who have commented about taxes - do you not have school age children either? How did you get to school, who funded your route, and did you get sent to a school which you did not chose to go to?

Private medical insurance????? It's not about 'first choice' schools or ' preferred' schools, it's about not being to afford to send your children to the school designated as your child's catchment school.

Score: -2

Com sense
11:26pm Tue 4 Feb 14

eds444 wrote…

Why do the council continue to persecute children's services - is it because they do not have children of their own or because their children have now left education? The savings they will make by cutting bus services to catchment schools will be minimal. If they wanted to make significant savings perhaps they should be looking a little closer to home i.e. private medical insurance for staff members. Ian Hudspeth should remember who elected him to office and should now be counting his days as a councillor as he will definitely not be re-elected following his handling of this fiasco. We should ALL also remember that our current school children are the ones who will be funding our pensions in the not too distant future and if they haven't received the right education - because they have not been given a choice on which school they should attend - they will not get the jobs which will give them the income which will ultimately fund our pensions and other services. Also, we educate our children not to bully others and yet here we are with councillors who are bullying us in to sending our children to schools that are not our first choice because they simply cannot afford to send them to their preferred school. The current system isn't broken, it does not need to be fixed - LEAVE IT ALONE. And as for those of you who have commented about taxes - do you not have school age children either? How did you get to school, who funded your route, and did you get sent to a school which you did not chose to go to?

Private medical insurance????? It's not about 'first choice' schools or ' preferred' schools, it's about not being to afford to send your children to the school designated as your child's catchment school.

[quote][p][bold]eds444[/bold] wrote:
Why do the council continue to persecute children's services - is it because they do not have children of their own or because their children have now left education? The savings they will make by cutting bus services to catchment schools will be minimal. If they wanted to make significant savings perhaps they should be looking a little closer to home i.e. private medical insurance for staff members. Ian Hudspeth should remember who elected him to office and should now be counting his days as a councillor as he will definitely not be re-elected following his handling of this fiasco. We should ALL also remember that our current school children are the ones who will be funding our pensions in the not too distant future and if they haven't received the right education - because they have not been given a choice on which school they should attend - they will not get the jobs which will give them the income which will ultimately fund our pensions and other services. Also, we educate our children not to bully others and yet here we are with councillors who are bullying us in to sending our children to schools that are not our first choice because they simply cannot afford to send them to their preferred school. The current system isn't broken, it does not need to be fixed - LEAVE IT ALONE. And as for those of you who have commented about taxes - do you not have school age children either? How did you get to school, who funded your route, and did you get sent to a school which you did not chose to go to?[/p][/quote]Private medical insurance????? It's not about 'first choice' schools or ' preferred' schools, it's about not being to afford to send your children to the school designated as your child's catchment school.Com sense

eds444 wrote…

Why do the council continue to persecute children's services - is it because they do not have children of their own or because their children have now left education? The savings they will make by cutting bus services to catchment schools will be minimal. If they wanted to make significant savings perhaps they should be looking a little closer to home i.e. private medical insurance for staff members. Ian Hudspeth should remember who elected him to office and should now be counting his days as a councillor as he will definitely not be re-elected following his handling of this fiasco. We should ALL also remember that our current school children are the ones who will be funding our pensions in the not too distant future and if they haven't received the right education - because they have not been given a choice on which school they should attend - they will not get the jobs which will give them the income which will ultimately fund our pensions and other services. Also, we educate our children not to bully others and yet here we are with councillors who are bullying us in to sending our children to schools that are not our first choice because they simply cannot afford to send them to their preferred school. The current system isn't broken, it does not need to be fixed - LEAVE IT ALONE. And as for those of you who have commented about taxes - do you not have school age children either? How did you get to school, who funded your route, and did you get sent to a school which you did not chose to go to?

Private medical insurance????? It's not about 'first choice' schools or ' preferred' schools, it's about not being to afford to send your children to the school designated as your child's catchment school.

Score: -4

alu355
9:02am Wed 5 Feb 14

I think the correct decision has been made, albeit one which was very difficult to make. No one likes having services cut but Oxfordshire County Council have been forced to make significant cuts whilst keeping mandatory services intact.

I think the correct decision has been made, albeit one which was very difficult to make. No one likes having services cut but Oxfordshire County Council have been forced to make significant cuts whilst keeping mandatory services intact.alu355

I think the correct decision has been made, albeit one which was very difficult to make. No one likes having services cut but Oxfordshire County Council have been forced to make significant cuts whilst keeping mandatory services intact.

Score: 0

Segdirb22
6:56pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Com sense wrote…

Bicester retired wrote…

I agree that the council has to pay only when children are sent to a distant school due to lack of places in local schools. Most people are free to choose where to live. Some choose to live near parents, some near friends, some near work and some near school. Also, people are free to choose to have children or not. Don't put the responsibility to others for problems created by your own choice. A friend of mine works in London and has chosen to live in Bicester. He has to spend more than £5000 a year for his train and underground tickets due to his choice. Do anyone want to subsidise him for his travel?

A lot of people may have chosen to live according to catchment areas which have previously been set by the council, the goal posts have now been moved and certain secondary schools existence may seriously be at threat. We as a generation have a responsibility for the next generations education and that must be remembered.

Some poorer families have no choice where the live but go where a housing association house comes up. They are not automatically free school meals. All of the comments on here really are missing the point. Children legally have to go to school. I had no intention of having children when I moved into my house. I also hadn't planned on living in a village. It was just about what was available at the time. The Council have a legal obligation to provide transport and that is what they must do. The grumble here is that the transport hasn't been particularly well thought out and these changes are incredibly risky and could expose the council to greater expense if they haven't 'predicted' parental behaviour accurately. I have worked all my life and pay tax and I accept that a proportion of my taxes will cover these things. It covers all sorts of things that I don't use and probably never will but that is just how it is. This is not about subsidising the rich.

[quote][p][bold]Com sense[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bicester retired[/bold] wrote: I agree that the council has to pay only when children are sent to a distant school due to lack of places in local schools. Most people are free to choose where to live. Some choose to live near parents, some near friends, some near work and some near school. Also, people are free to choose to have children or not. Don't put the responsibility to others for problems created by your own choice. A friend of mine works in London and has chosen to live in Bicester. He has to spend more than £5000 a year for his train and underground tickets due to his choice. Do anyone want to subsidise him for his travel?[/p][/quote]A lot of people may have chosen to live according to catchment areas which have previously been set by the council, the goal posts have now been moved and certain secondary schools existence may seriously be at threat. We as a generation have a responsibility for the next generations education and that must be remembered.[/p][/quote]Some poorer families have no choice where the live but go where a housing association house comes up. They are not automatically free school meals. All of the comments on here really are missing the point. Children legally have to go to school. I had no intention of having children when I moved into my house. I also hadn't planned on living in a village. It was just about what was available at the time. The Council have a legal obligation to provide transport and that is what they must do. The grumble here is that the transport hasn't been particularly well thought out and these changes are incredibly risky and could expose the council to greater expense if they haven't 'predicted' parental behaviour accurately. I have worked all my life and pay tax and I accept that a proportion of my taxes will cover these things. It covers all sorts of things that I don't use and probably never will but that is just how it is. This is not about subsidising the rich.Segdirb22

Com sense wrote…

Bicester retired wrote…

I agree that the council has to pay only when children are sent to a distant school due to lack of places in local schools. Most people are free to choose where to live. Some choose to live near parents, some near friends, some near work and some near school. Also, people are free to choose to have children or not. Don't put the responsibility to others for problems created by your own choice. A friend of mine works in London and has chosen to live in Bicester. He has to spend more than £5000 a year for his train and underground tickets due to his choice. Do anyone want to subsidise him for his travel?

A lot of people may have chosen to live according to catchment areas which have previously been set by the council, the goal posts have now been moved and certain secondary schools existence may seriously be at threat. We as a generation have a responsibility for the next generations education and that must be remembered.

Some poorer families have no choice where the live but go where a housing association house comes up. They are not automatically free school meals. All of the comments on here really are missing the point. Children legally have to go to school. I had no intention of having children when I moved into my house. I also hadn't planned on living in a village. It was just about what was available at the time. The Council have a legal obligation to provide transport and that is what they must do. The grumble here is that the transport hasn't been particularly well thought out and these changes are incredibly risky and could expose the council to greater expense if they haven't 'predicted' parental behaviour accurately. I have worked all my life and pay tax and I accept that a proportion of my taxes will cover these things. It covers all sorts of things that I don't use and probably never will but that is just how it is. This is not about subsidising the rich.

Score: 1

Thinkingoutloud
6:58pm Wed 5 Feb 14

why should the council subsidise some parents who choose to send their children to a school other than the one nearest to them. Considering the number of council tax payers in oxfordshire it would appear as though there was only a very small minority opposed to the councils plans. The rest of us are happy to see the money saved and reinvested into more desearving things lthe council has to do

why should the council subsidise some parents who choose to send their children to a school other than the one nearest to them. Considering the number of council tax payers in oxfordshire it would appear as though there was only a very small minority opposed to the councils plans. The rest of us are happy to see the money saved and reinvested into more desearving things lthe council has to doThinkingoutloud

why should the council subsidise some parents who choose to send their children to a school other than the one nearest to them. Considering the number of council tax payers in oxfordshire it would appear as though there was only a very small minority opposed to the councils plans. The rest of us are happy to see the money saved and reinvested into more desearving things lthe council has to do

Score: 2

Segdirb22
7:00pm Wed 5 Feb 14

oxinkytext wrote…

I agree with hatofthecat. Much of the noise comes from parents choosing to send their children to schools which are not local to them. Fine - that is their choice - but no reason why everyone else has to pay. It is a different matter if the child cannot get into their local school because it is full and has to be sent to a more distant school. Then, the council should pay. There is also the matter of £7million paid on taxis to ferry children to schools! I am sure there are legitimate cases, but this seems to have been exploited. Just try and get a taxi booking at 8-9am in the morning -they are all booked for the school run!

As it currently stands - if you choose to send your child to a school that isn't your catchment school you do have to pay. Children living in Carterton have Carterton Community College as their catchment school. Those that choose not to attend have to pay to transport them to either Henry Box School in Witney (that's where the majority seem to go) or they pay to travel by bus to Burford. If they choose other than catchment, they have to pay. It is currently a very fair scheme.
The only children that get funded transport to a choice of 1 of their 3 nearest schools are those entitled to free school meals. Just felt the need to set the record straight there.

[quote][p][bold]oxinkytext[/bold] wrote:
I agree with hatofthecat. Much of the noise comes from parents choosing to send their children to schools which are not local to them. Fine - that is their choice - but no reason why everyone else has to pay. It is a different matter if the child cannot get into their local school because it is full and has to be sent to a more distant school. Then, the council should pay. There is also the matter of £7million paid on taxis to ferry children to schools! I am sure there are legitimate cases, but this seems to have been exploited. Just try and get a taxi booking at 8-9am in the morning -they are all booked for the school run![/p][/quote]As it currently stands - if you choose to send your child to a school that isn't your catchment school you do have to pay. Children living in Carterton have Carterton Community College as their catchment school. Those that choose not to attend have to pay to transport them to either Henry Box School in Witney (that's where the majority seem to go) or they pay to travel by bus to Burford. If they choose other than catchment, they have to pay. It is currently a very fair scheme.
The only children that get funded transport to a choice of 1 of their 3 nearest schools are those entitled to free school meals. Just felt the need to set the record straight there.Segdirb22

oxinkytext wrote…

I agree with hatofthecat. Much of the noise comes from parents choosing to send their children to schools which are not local to them. Fine - that is their choice - but no reason why everyone else has to pay. It is a different matter if the child cannot get into their local school because it is full and has to be sent to a more distant school. Then, the council should pay. There is also the matter of £7million paid on taxis to ferry children to schools! I am sure there are legitimate cases, but this seems to have been exploited. Just try and get a taxi booking at 8-9am in the morning -they are all booked for the school run!

As it currently stands - if you choose to send your child to a school that isn't your catchment school you do have to pay. Children living in Carterton have Carterton Community College as their catchment school. Those that choose not to attend have to pay to transport them to either Henry Box School in Witney (that's where the majority seem to go) or they pay to travel by bus to Burford. If they choose other than catchment, they have to pay. It is currently a very fair scheme.
The only children that get funded transport to a choice of 1 of their 3 nearest schools are those entitled to free school meals. Just felt the need to set the record straight there.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here